SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
R.K. Overseas - Appellant
Versus
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8900 of 2021 & CM Appls. 27657 of 2021, 34449 of 2021
Decided On : 21-11-2022




Duty drawback payments are deemed never allowed if the sale proceeds are not received within the time specified by law.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110 and 75; Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 - Recovery of duty drawback - The petitioner assailed the impugned communication which prohibited bank transactions without legal authority. The official respondents claimed illegal duty drawback against overvalued exports. Court found the provisional attachment order expired, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account but requiring the duty drawback amount to be remitted due to non-realization of sale proceeds. (Paras 10, 36, 39)

(B) Duty Drawback - Deemed ineligible without realization of sale proceeds - Duty drawback paid is deemed never to have been allowed if sale proceeds are not received in the timeframe specified by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. (Paras 27, 30, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a communication from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that restricted bank transactions due to alleged illegal duty drawback claims involving exports valued at Rs.1960 crores. It sought relief regarding Rs.49,23,635/- in duty drawback credited to its account.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the impugned communication was flawed, the subsequent provisional attachment orders were legally valid, and the petitioner could operate the account without access to the duty drawback funds.

Issues: The primary issues included the legality of the impugned communication, the validity of provisional attachment orders, and access to funds in light of non-realized export sale proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisional attachment orders, although flawed in process, were valid, and the duty drawback amount was contingent on the realization of sale proceeds, applying statutory provisions to affirm this condition.

Result: Writ petition disposed; petitioner to remit duty drawback amount and respond to the show-cause notice while being allowed to operate the bank account.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 29.07.2021 [hereafter referred to as "impugned communication"], passed by respondent no.1 i.e., Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit.

2. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 24.08.2021.

2.1. Since then, pleadings in the writ petition stand completed.

3. The respondent nos.1 to 3/revenue [hereafter referred to as "official respondents"] pursuant to the various orders of this Court, have filed several additional affidavits.

4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner in the matter.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length.

6. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner have been advanced by Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel, while Mr Satish Kumar, learned senior standing counsel made submissions on behalf of official respondents/revenue.

7. The broad facts which have emerged in the matter are as follows:

8. The respondent no.1 issued the impugned communication to the banker of the petitioner i.e., IndusInd Bank Limited [hereafter referred to as the "bank"], which in substance, prevented the bank from making any debit entries in the account maintained with it by the petitioner.

8.1. Furthermore, it was clearly indicated in the impugned communication, that no "outward transactions" would be permitted in the said account, until further communication was received in that behalf from respondent no.1.

8.2. A request was made via the same communication to the petitioner's banker, to provide KYC documents and bank statement, albeit from the date when the account was opened till the date when the impugned communication was issued.

9. It is this, which brought the petitioner to the Court.

10. The petitioner has assailed the impugned communication on the ground, that it has been issued without the authority of law.

10.1. Inter alia, the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [in short "Act"] were adverted to, on behalf of the petitioner.

11. Upon the official respondents/revenue filing a counter-affidavit [and other additional affidavits] in the matter, what emerged was, that according to the official respondents/revenue, the petitioner had illegally availed duty drawback, against overvalued exports.

11.1. The stand of the official respondents/revenue is, that based on the intelligence developed by DRI, Mumbai, it surfaced that the petitioner was part of a syndicate, which was involved in fraudulent/unlawful availment of duty drawback, by taking recourse to bogus dummy Importer Exporter Codes ["IECs"].

11.2. The IECs, according to the official respondents/revenue, were fraudulently obtained by misleading certain "innocent persons."

12. The official respondents/revenue have alleged, that the syndicate has obtained 124 IECs, which represent exports worth Rs.1960 crores, and in the process, availed, albeit illegally, Rs.52 crores as duty drawback.

12.1. As indicated above, the official respondents/revenue allege, that the petitioner is a member of the syndicate.

13. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the more specific allegation is, that it had exported, in June, 2021 "Ready Made Garments made of Man Made Fiber Boys Woven Shirts", against 26 shipping bills.

13.1. The FOB value represented by these 26 shipping bills, even according to the petitioner, is Rs.20,92,85,278.50/-.

13.2. Against this, the petitioner, concededly, has lodged a duty drawback claim amounting to Rs.63,71,452/-.

14. The petitioner has admittedly obtained duty drawback against 20 shipping bills, out of a total of 26 shipping bills, upon the same being sanctioned by the official respondents/revenue.

14.1. The duty drawback sanctioned against 20 shipping bills amounts to Rs.49,23,635/-.

15. Thus, what remained to be processed, were 6 shipping bills, which represent duty drawback amoun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top